Glenn Beck and his utterances would seem to be a hearkening back to the 50’s and Joseph McCarthy.
McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason to enlist by shock value and peer pressure fear to contradict the perception of a lynch mob mentality of supporters.
Often McCarthyism leveraged both challenges to patriotism and godliness in a quest to promote an agenda.
It was in such a climate in 1954 that “Under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance, debasing the constitution and the secular nature of our nation.
Article VI – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
…
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
…
Treaty of Tripoli
“As the Government of the United States of America isnot in any sense founded on the Christian religion”…
Our founding fathers new the dangers of such mixing of religion and government , which was why the wall of separation between church and state was erect, so as to protect each from the other.
Tis a shame that as fast as these lessons are learned they are forgotten.
July 22, 2010 at 6:36 pm |
I dont believe your statement is entirely correct. ““Under God” wasadded to the pledge of allegiance, debasing the constitution and the secular nature of our nation..”
If this were the case the usage of the word God would not be found on our money, on governmental buildings, the bible wouldn’t be allowed to be used to swear officials in and I could go on. Most of these things have happened since the constitutions inception. As w most political points you have 3 groups of people, 1 who take it too far one way, another who take it too far the opposite way and still another who are indifferent.
Separation of church and state was to keep churches/priests/other religious entities from influencing government. The word God is on our money and other places simply because our forefathers did not deem this as being a case of an outside religious entity influencing governmental decisions. But the atheists will tell you otherwise.
July 22, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
Actually the phrase “under god” was added to the
paper money around the same time as
“under god” was added to the pledge.
“under god” was slipped onto coins years earlier.
The founding fathers went out of their way
to keep “God” and religion out of government.
Justifying the violation of the constitution by
citing other violations of the constitution
is sorta like justifying bank robberies with
citations from the police blotter.
As to the selection of a bible in an official’s
swearing in , it is not required, and the
candidate could swear upon any book,
including a playboy magazine , or none at all.
if you examine (Article II of the constitution) you
will find that it explicitly defines what is required
in the swearing in of the president and you will
find no mention of god or bibles.
Actually in the 4543 words of the
United States constitution you will find
that the word “God” was not uttered even
a single time.
I agree with you that Separation of church and
state was indeed meant to keep religions
from influencing government. Freedom of
religion must also of course include freedom
from religion.
It is obvious that “under god” and “In god we trust” are
considered by religions as an endorsement,
and often used to advance religious based
agendas into law, re-invent history and otherwise
debase the secular nature of this countries constitution.
Our fore fathers specifically declared that the
United States is in no way founded upon the
Christian religion
(Article VI – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths / Treaty of Tripoli )
The supreme court’s “Lemon Test” is composed
of three parts.
1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose.
2. Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither
advances nor inhibits religion.
3. The statute must not foster
“an excessive government entanglement with religion.”
Decide for yourself if the 1954 law adding the
words “Under God” to the pledge passes the test.
That is of course if one can separate ones self
from the biased goal of rooting for your home team
to actually look at the facts.
September 16, 2010 at 12:40 am |
I dont believe your statement is entirely correct. ““Under God” wasadded to the pledge of allegiance, debasing the constitution and the secular nature of our nation..”If this were the case the usage of the word God would not be found on our money, on governmental buildings, the bible wouldn’t be allowed to be used to swear officials in and I could go on. Most of these things have happened since the constitutions inception. As w most political points you have 3 groups of people, 1 who take it too far one way, another who take it too far the opposite way and still another who are indifferent.Separation of church and state was to keep churches/priests/other religious entities from influencing government. The word God is on our money and other places simply because our forefathers did not deem this as being a case of an outside religious entity influencing governmental decisions. But the atheists will tell you otherwise.
+1
September 16, 2010 at 6:01 am |
The so called “Christian Nation” crowd has a long history of what one might term intellectual “cattle rustling”.
One would think if there is no intention of a separation
between church and state that in the 4543 words of the
constitution one would see the word “god”, but no, it’s not
there.
Not even a “so help me god” in the presidential oath of
office which is spelled out in Article II section 1 of the constitution
down to the very last word. No requirements of a bible or any
other of the clap trap piled on, that would by it’s very nature be a
violation of the 1st Amendment.
Judeo-christianity in this context is used much like the
“bar 8″ branding iron that cattle rustlers might emboss
over the “bar o” to claim that the rustled cattle involved
had always belonged to them.
Such tactics often remind me of those “you might be a redneck”
lines of stand up comedy where various common bits of day to
day life are used in jest to swell the ranks of the “red necks”
in the comedy piece to implicate just about everyone in the audience
as a member.
I do believe we can agree that even in this conversation
“Judeo-christianity” has been used to distance those
claimed in it’s membership from the particular brand
of belief known as the “christian religion” as it indeed does seem
to be a popular debate tactic in trying to sneak around the treaty of tripoli
and it’s declaration that “…As the Government of the United States
of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” .
To claim that “Judeo-Christianity” is not in any
sense founded on “Christianity” would be hard for most
to say with a straight face, but obviously some manage to do so.
Now while the constituion was adopted on September 17, 1787,
The earliest uses cited by the Oxford English Dictionary of
the terms “Judeo–Christian” and “Judeo–Christianity” date to
1899 and 1910 respectively. This presents a problem in temporal mechanics
spanning some 112 years of time travel for the “Judeo-Christianity” claim.
So what it would seem is that the phrase “Judeo-Christianity”
arriving some 112 years or so after the constitution is intened to
serve as some sort of pseudo retroactive copyright or patent on basic concepts
like “liberty”, “responsibility”, “hard work”, “ethics”, “justice” and the like
so as to say much like the “You might be a redneck” comedy sketches
that those with such beliefs can have no separate identity
but owe their existance to a term that did not even exist at the time
and in so doing place the “bar 8″ brand of christian cattle rustlers
over and on the “bar o” brand of all those who were not.
The theme of placing the “bar 8″ on “bar o” cattle rustling
has been an ongoing activity.
It was not untill about 77 years after the constitution
around 1864 that “In god we trust” was first slipped onto a 2 cent coin
in response to lobbying efforts by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, a “Christian”
minister from Ridley Township, Pa. , in yet again another instance
of slapping the “bar 8″ brand on the government like a kid with
a can of spray paint.
The “bar 8″ cattle rustling continues. About 105 years
after the constitution in 1892 Francis Bellamy created
“The pledge of Allegiance” which originally read….
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.
It was not until 62 years later in 1954 that the “bar 8″ cattle rustlers
set their eyes to putting the “bar 8″ brand on our nations pledge
and added “Under God” to the pledge.
About two years later the “bar 8″ gang added to this rustling
spree by adding “In god we trust” to the paper money and
installing it as the national motto.
When the “bar 8″ gang was called into court to over this
they quickly sought cover by calling those instances
of “bar 8″ “Ceremonial Deism” , you read it right.
Knowing that their “christian” based motivations would
run afoul of the 1st amendment they sought the cover of the deists
who of course don’t go in much for “organized religion” so
there is no religious organization per say to endorse.
So here it again it was the deist system that saved their bacon.
Yet today the “bar 8″ crowd in total contradiction
to those claims are often sighting these “bar 8″ cattle rustlings
as “proof” that America is somehow a “Christian Nation”.
Like gang graffitie the “bar 8″ brand is installed at
every oppourtunity. Then as is often the case cited
to “prove” that the “bar o” brand underneath never existed.
It would seem reasonable that since it is the “bar 8″ crowd
doing all this revising of the “bar o” brand that they
indeed are the ones practicing a “revisionist history”
and their “he who smelt it dealt it” arguments but
the illogical constructions they appear to be.
There have even been attempts by the “bar 8″ gang
to place their mark on that most certainly not “bar 8″
side of beef know as “Thomas Paine” who felt such strong
dis-favor for organized religion that he published those
views on multiple occasions with those writings
being bestsellers in thir day (just 7 years after the constitution)
That’s right though, the “bar 8″ has that time machine
to solve the issue by back filling history 112 years
to force “judeo christianity” to exist over a century
before the term was even coined.
This back filled history despite the problem of
the temporal mechanics involved would seem highly unlikely
as it was not until 1968 that it was made illegal
for the “bar 8″ crowd to have property covenants prohibiting
“Jewish” and other “non members” of the “bar 8″ crowd
from even purchasing “bar 8″ land.
Now deists were NOT atheists but rather in line with the
thoughts of Thomas Paine “My own mind is my own Church”
and did not believe that organized religion was needed
as truths are self evident.
History is very clear on it, it is the “bar 8″ crowd
comitting the acts of “revisionist history”